Developing an effective course syllabus

NACTA Journal, Sep 2003 by Hess, Jana L, Whittington, M Susie

Abstract

Throughout the 10-year span of a longitudinal research study in colleges of agriculture, professors were asked to share their course syllabi with the research team. It became an increasing concern across the decade that professors lacked definition, clarity, and uniformity in developing syllabi for their courses. In fact, the extremes ranged from an eloquently detailed 12-page document to no syllabus at all.

Recently, in preparation for The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Evaluation (NCATE) formal review, a department chose to thoroughly examine, edit, and re-align all course syllabi with the current standards, and with each course in the department, to create a seamless articulation across levels and a uniform look across the department. This article highlights and offers examples of the standard components of an effective syllabus, so that professors across all disciplines have a guide for constructing course syllabi.

Introduction

It is important and fundamental that educators provide a framework for the course they will be teaching. Most often that framework is provided to the students through a course syllabus. For students, the syllabus provides security in knowing the direction and expectations for a particular course (McKeachie, 1978; 1999). There may be as well additional means by which instructors communicate information and convey expectations to students; however, the syllabus provides a written form of communication that lists responsibilities and sets goals for the course (Eberly, Newton, & Wiggins, 2001). "The syllabus is often the initial communication tool that students receive and is often the most formal mechanism for sharing information with students regarding the course" (Eberly, Newton, Wiggins, 2001, p56).

"Despite the importance of a syllabus, the structures and formats of written syllabi tend to be handed down from one generation to the next, rarely considered as part of curriculum redesign" (Eberly, Newton, Wiggins, 2001, p.56). Eberley et. al (2001) further concluded that, "Nothing substantial drives syllabus construction. With the whirlwind of responsibilities surrounding the initiation of new faculty and development of new courses, syllabus construction becomes a minor task" (Eberly, Newton, Wiggins, 2001, p.71).

Given that a well-developed syllabus provides a sound framework for the course being taught, as well as security and direction for students, what steps can be followed in creating an effective syllabus? The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Evaluation (NCATE) outlines a sound structure to follow when developing a course syllabus. Using NCATE criterion, the Department of Human and Community Resource Development (HCRD) at The Ohio State University is striving to meet the needs of students in the classroom by developing a uniform department-wide framework for all course syllabi. This article provides a thorough examination, and examples, of the elements contained in the HCRD syllabi, which can be used by professors in any discipline across colleges of agriculture to strengthen the effectiveness of their course syllabi.

Review of Literature:

Bers, et al. (1996), suggest that the integrity of a syllabus is important for administrative purposes because (1) syllabi are explicit public descriptions of courses, (2) they can and often are used as evidence in grievance and judicial hearings, and (3) they are used routinely to determine course equivalency in transfer situations. Because syllabi serve these functions, they form a contract between the student and the university.

According to McKeachie, the syllabus is organizational and centered around a schedule of assignments, tests, and topics (McKeachie, 1999). McKeachie also views the syllabus as a contract. He recommends that professors listen to student input and consider alternative ways in which students can achieve class goals. His assertion is that "students who have options and a sense of personal control are likely to be more highly motivated for learning" (McKeachie, 1999, p. 17). In addition, McKeachie (1978) contends that while instructors are developing the syllabus, they are forced to carefully consider the topics to be covered, the dates that assignments will be due, the dates that exams will be administered, and especially the objectives that will be reached (McKeachie, 1978).

When purposefully selecting the objectives that will be reached, the professor is focusing on learning rather than teaching, which requires a shift from an overview of what the instructor will teach, to consideration of what students need in order to be successful learners. The syllabus then is the first opportunity to introduce the learner-centered paradigm to students and to describe for them the roles and responsibilities that both professors and students share in the class (Diamond, 1997, p. ix). Allowing students to review the course syllabus and then offering input into its content, enables them to take part in its development, and therefore take ownership in their learning. Instructors must take advantage of this opportunity for student-centered learning.